This made me smile.

[FireFighterChen]

I have seen this "activist's" videos on YouTube before and they are all ridiculous. This last one was posted on theCHIVE - Funny Photos and Funny Videos – Keep Calm and Chive On.

What would you do if a guy was walking through your neighborhood looking like a thug with a MP5 or AK-47?

I clicked on your link but it just brought me to the homepage so I can't see the video you are talking about.

Have you seen what he looks like? Look up some of his other youtube videos, there are video's of him in third person...he does not at all look like a thug. Clean cut, buzzed hair, nice clothes. If I saw Warren walking through the neighborhood with an AR on a sling resting behind him, I would do nothing. Walking around with a properly slung rifle is not a crime, and such would not warrant a call to the police.

Again you guys are characterizing this guy as if he is walking around firearms in his hand, waving it around, aiming it, brandishing, etc...he does no such thing.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Rogue River Oregon, Police Department. Open Carry AR-15 - YouTube

In case any one was too lazy to find a video. Here he is. Doesn't look like a thug to me.

 

[keystir]

Rogue River Oregon, Police Department. Open Carry AR-15 - YouTube

In case any one was too lazy to find a video. Here he is. Doesn't look like a thug to me.

Not to lazy, just to stupid. We can't all be the perfect package like yourself.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Not to lazy, just to stupid. We can't all be the perfect package like yourself.

Your words, not mine :-D

 

[fatamos33]

I clicked on your link but it just brought me to the homepage so I can't see the video you are talking about.

Have you seen what he looks like? Look up some of his other youtube videos, there are video's of him in third person...he does not at all look like a thug. Clean cut, buzzed hair, nice clothes. If I saw Warren walking through the neighborhood with an AR on a sling resting behind him, I would do nothing. Walking around with a properly slung rifle is not a crime, and such would not warrant a call to the police.

Again you guys are characterizing this guy as if he is walking around firearms in his hand, waving it around, aiming it, brandishing, etc...he does no such thing.

The video that he is talking about is the video I posted. I will agree with you by saying that exercising your 2nd amendment rights is great, and that more people should educate themselves on what their rights are in the area. You are also right when you say that he does not look like a thug, and he is not being unsafe with it. However in MY opinion I personally think that this guy is trying to be billy bad *** walking around with an assault rifle everywhere he goes. Can you please explain to me why anybody needs to carry around an assault rifle while walking around town or a park? Is he planning on something happening and he will be prepared to shoot somebody/something? If he was walking around with his pistol showing that's one thing. But when it comes down to it he is purposely drawing attention to himself.

I just feel like this is overkill and that the only reason he is doing this is to try and become popular via internet. In one video he tells an officer who he is, and continues with "You've probably heard of me", like he was bragging about being the guy that every officer has heard of because somebody in their department has had to waste their time checking up on a call that didnt need to be made. All because he choose to walk around town with an MP5. Once again I ask is it really necessary to walk around town or a park with an MP5. Thats just my opinion.

 

[FireFighterChen]

The video that he is talking about is the video I posted. I will agree with you by saying that exercising your 2nd amendment rights is great, and that more people should educate themselves on what their rights are in the area.

Got it, cool, then I have seen the OP video, and it looks like another thread has been started on it as well.

You are also right when you say that he does not look like a thug, and he is not being unsafe with it. However in MY opinion I personally think that this guy is trying to be billy bad *** walking around with an assault rifle everywhere he goes. Can you please explain to me why anybody needs to carry around an assault rifle while walking around town or a park?

Come on man...an assault rifle? Really? If anything, a real HK MP5 is a sub machine gun, not an assault rifle. He was carrying neither an assault rifle or a sub machine gun, and if he had the proper paperwork, it is not illegal to carry either of those as well. I really did not expect a firearm owner to get those names so casually mixed up. Media hype and the Brady Bunch have ingrained this all rifles that are black are "assault rifles"...don't feed off it!

Again I ask, if you are concealing in your supermarket, you have broken no laws since open carrying is legal, and the barrel of your firearm is showing when you reach for those yummy doritos at the top shelf. Does an officer have the authority to detain you, seize your property, and demand ID? No he does not.

Is he planning on something happening and he will be prepared to shoot somebody/something? If he was walking around with his pistol showing that's one thing. But when it comes down to it he is purposely drawing attention to himself.


His video's are not just to show he has the means of self defense, but what our rights are. He shows people the cops who have no interest in the constitution (remember the officer saying, "Enough with the rules.." what gives the officer the power to be above the rules stated in the Constitution?), and just as importantly, the good cops of different towns. And if he just wants attention, what is wrong with that?

I just feel like this is overkill and that the only reason he is doing this is to try and become popular via internet. In one video he tells an officer who he is, and continues with "You've probably heard of me", like he was bragging about being the guy that every officer has heard of because somebody in their department has had to waste their time checking up on a call that didnt need to be made. All because he choose to walk around town with an MP5. Once again I ask is it really necessary to walk around town or a park with an MP5. Thats just my opinion.

The call not needing to be made is not his choice, that is the choice of the ignorant caller, followed by the ignorance of the dispatcher not knowing the laws, followed by an officer following up on his opinion and not the color of the law. There is nothing overkill about exercising your Rights. Who are any of us to deem what is necessary for another man to do legally? Do you feel magazine's holding more than 10 rounds is overkill? Barrels shorter than 16" is overkill? Barrel shrouds are overkill? All these things have been deemed overkill if you just ask the wrong person. You want to control another US citizen based on what you feel is "appropriate, acceptable, and reasonable" and in this case "necessary." That is not someone who wants freedom.

Thank you for a decent response. My response is in blue quoted in the above.

Has anyone here spent ANY time being an activist for ANY of our rights? Doubtful..

Would you guys just be pleased with only seeing mass murders and psychopaths on TV using these "assault rifles" to kill people? Then turn around and say, "OMG there is a law abiding citizen carrying a rifle, what a douche bag idiot moron for doing such a thing...how dare him exercise his rights and speak out for us...We just want to see the evil that guns bring to this world."

Someone recently on another website said MarkedGaurdian is causing the problems, if he wears his firearms that way he is asking for it. How is that any different from blaming a rape victim that she deserved it, because look at what she is wearing, don't blame the criminal he couldn't help himself. How many men here are going to complain about 2 piece bikini's now? Warren broke no laws, he is exercising his Rights, and you guys are going to berate a law abiding citizen and pat a police officer on the back that outright said, "Enough with the rules."? Seriously?

 

[fatamos33]

Please forgive my ignorance with calling it an assault rifle. I'm still very much a noob when it comes to anything more then a pistol and hunting rifles, I know ARs and M16s thats my extent when it comes to anything other than a handgun and hunting rifles. Either way its (in my opinion) overkill. I would have said enough with the rules as well, as Warren was continually interrupting him. The officer wasnt doing anything but questioning what the rifle was, and asking to see it. If an officer has reasonable suspicion he can detain anybody he wants and in this case he states that the weapon looks exactly like the one he uses on the swat team which is fully automatic. As far as the yummy Doritos scenario goes there is a difference. All he needs to do is say "do you have a permit for that". In this scenario he would need a permit for the weapon had it been a real MP5. The reason I reel the way i do about Warren is because he is going about things the wrong way. There are other ways to educate others on their 2nd amendment rights than to waste the time of police officers. He comes across arrogant and there is no reason for any of it. He made himself look like a jerk when he repeatedly said "I'm not submiting to any search seziures" The officer wanted to inspect the weapon in the safest way possible which was removing it from warren himself. After he looked at the weapon he gave it right back. I really dont see why there is a problem with that. Personally if i were a cop i dont know that i would believe him if he told me it was a 22. It very well could have been an MP5 that warren didnt have proper paper work for and he was trying to pass it as a 22 replica.

The call may not have been his choice but the officer has an obligation to follow up on it. To me it didn't seem like the officer knew who he was so he was probably wondering why a young man was walking around town with (what looked to be) a sub machine gun. I am not trying to control anybody all I am saying is that in MY opinion walking around with something more than a pistol simply to make videos of police officer encounters is overkill. I never once said that he shouldn't be able to do any of this i simply said in my opinion its overkill/stupid. If he wants to do it thats fine however I'm still going to stick to my opinions, and exercise my 1st amendment rights.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Please forgive my ignorance with calling it an assault rifle. I'm still very much a noob when it comes to anything more then a pistol and hunting rifles, I know ARs and M16s thats my extent when it comes to anything other than a handgun and hunting rifles. Either way its (in my opinion) overkill. I would have said enough with the rules as well, as Warren was continually interrupting him. The officer wasnt doing anything but questioning what the rifle was, and asking to see it. If an officer has reasonable suspicion he can detain anybody he wants and in this case he states that the weapon looks exactly like the one he uses on the swat team which is fully automatic. As far as the yummy Doritos scenario goes there is a difference. All he needs to do is say "do you have a permit for that". In this scenario he would need a permit for the weapon had it been a real MP5. The reason I reel the way i do about Warren is because he is going about things the wrong way. There are other ways to educate others on their 2nd amendment rights than to waste the time of police officers. He comes across arrogant and there is no reason for any of it. He made himself look like a jerk when he repeatedly said "I'm not submiting to any search seziures" The officer wanted to inspect the weapon in the safest way possible which was removing it from warren himself. After he looked at the weapon he gave it right back. I really dont see why there is a problem with that. Personally if i were a cop i dont know that i would believe him if he told me it was a 22. It very well could have been an MP5 that warren didnt have proper paper work for and he was trying to pass it as a 22 replica.

The call may not have been his choice but the officer has an obligation to follow up on it. To me it didn't seem like the officer knew who he was so he was probably wondering why a young man was walking around town with (what looked to be) a sub machine gun. I am not trying to control anybody all I am saying is that in MY opinion walking around with something more than a pistol simply to make videos of police officer encounters is overkill. I never once said that he shouldn't be able to do any of this i simply said in my opinion its overkill/stupid. If he wants to do it thats fine however I'm still going to stick to my opinions, and exercise my 1st amendment rights.

First off that is all right since we all start somewhere. I hope you keep pursuing a life into the world of firearms, remember to learn something new everyday. While you may feel it was Warren interrupting the officer, I felt the officer was intimidating Warren. In most of the videos where the officer is impolite and aggressive, it is the officer that says stuff such as, "Quit talking," "Enough with the rules," and "I don't care." In the videos where the officer is polite and respectful they have a decent conversation. Reasonable suspicion only works if they are investigating a crime that has been, is being, or will be committed. What crime was he committing? Carrying a firearm is not against the law, and open carry has been deemed not RAS for a stop.

5 More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.6 Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.7 In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.8 The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.9

5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
8 Id.
9 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998

There is many more caselaws and SCOTUS rulings that defend the right to open carry.

So let me ask a similar question, do officers have the authority to pull over anybody, whether or not a crime was committed, to check to see if the driver has a drivers license? Or how bout to check to see if there are any illegal parts on the vehicle? Remember, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

As far as an obligation to respond. They can't respond to all calls, it's impossible, they do have a priority system. If it gets passed that, it's up to the officer to investigate a crime. That starts from the beginning of dispatch. If someone calls in a drunk driver, and an officer comes down the road and spots the car, driving perfectly fine, would it be right to pull them over? The officers can very easily watch the vehicle or an activist, and report back saying no crime was in progress. There does not have to be contact for the officer to write off that he responded. There definitely should not be a demand for ID if no crime is being committed. Remember, we are innocent until proven guilty. So in an open carrier case, he can open carry and it's protected by law, so he is innocent until he breaks the law. He is not guilty and needs to be found innocent, he all ready is innocent.

There are a lot of ways to be a firearms advocate. What he is doing, is just one way, and it is very important. Look at what happened in Michigan in the last decade. It was the open carry activists that reached out and stopped oppressive gun laws and pushed for firearm reform, which they got. Doing exactly what Warren did. Overkill? Maybe...Oregon has some pretty awesome firearms laws, you guys can own suppressors, SBR's, SBS's, machine guns, pretty much anything if you do the paperwork and pay for it. It would be a sad day when that all goes away because no one was exercising their rights for long guns...like it happened in WA where we can not own SBR's and SBS's.

 

[fd15k]

I would like to know how the cop knew the difference between a semi and a fully auto firearm, I understand he said something about his experience with weapons but I just wonder because I wanna be able to detect when a firearm is semi or full auto, granted sometimes you can tell... like a G18 or a military rifle with "FULL AUTO" switch on it lol. I think the cop was pretty professional and kept it cool.

While there is a chance that police officer could have been trained with and handled a select-fire MP5, I don't think it's really possible to tell a full-auto by briefly looking at it. I mean it's one thing to tell a factory gun is a full-auto, but another thing to encounter a possibly a custom conversion, and saying it's not a full-auto without disassembling and/or firing it.

 

[FireFighterChen]

While there is a chance that police officer could have been trained with and handled a select-fire MP5, I don't think it's really possible to tell a full-auto by briefly looking at it. I mean it's one thing to tell a factory gun is a full-auto, but another thing to encounter a possibly a custom conversion, and saying it's not a full-auto without disassembling and/or firing it.

I agree...and his "function test" makes no sense to me either. How will an empty full auto rifle behave differently than an empty semi auto? Don't they both go "click" when you pull the trigger? Can someone explain how a full auto will behave differently that test? Maybe...just thinking here...if you pull the trigger and cycle the action the hammer will fall again without letting go of the trigger on a full auto rifle? Anyone can confirm this?

I wonder if this gives them the authority to question someone carrying a flashlight, duffel bag, or piece of clay because who knows, it could be an explosive device. Or anyone who carries a glock could be carry one of those full auto assault glocks...so much for innocent until proven guilty.

 

[fd15k]

I agree...and his "function test" makes no sense to me either. How will an empty full auto rifle behave differently than an empty semi auto? Don't they both go "click" when you pull the trigger? Can someone explain how a full auto will behave differently that test? Maybe...just thinking here...if you pull the trigger and cycle the action the hammer will fall again without letting go of the trigger on a full auto rifle? Anyone can confirm this?

Need to depress the trigger and cycle the bolt manually - hammer should drop automatically as soon as the bolt closes. I believe the officer "clicked" that firearm once, but he did not perform the described test.

 

[The B]

If it makes a "PINK" sound when you release the trigger it's either semi-auto, or on semi-auto mode. if there's no other mode, one can assume the weapon is semi-auto.. no further testing is necessary.

 

[The B]

Need to depress the trigger and cycle the bolt manually - hammer should drop automatically as soon as the bolt closes. I believe the officer "clicked" that firearm once, but he did not perform the described test.

Does the hammer just ride the bolt back down in a RDBB select-fire action? There's no hammer delay?

 

[fd15k]

Does the hammer just ride the bolt back down in a RDBB select-fire action? There's no hammer delay?

If a firearm is designed to be fired with the bolt locked, trigger group has to ensure hammer drops only when the bolt is locked. Locking mechanism implementation (rollers) doesn't matter. Now for one, most .22lr don't use locking, and also one can expect any unsafe weirdness from a kitchen full-auto conversion...

 

[Ironbar]

Dear FireFighterChen,

With all due respect. (and so far it's very little), Warren Drouin is an idiot, not a crusader. If all he was doing was exercising his right to open carry, then I nor anyone else would have a problem with him. The problem is, Warren isn't satisfied with that. Warren actively TRIES to antagonize the Medford, OR police into making some sort of violation of his rights so he can then cry "FOUL!." He actively tries to antagonize them into a confrontation while all the time having his trusty camera phone rolling to hopefully catch the cops making some sort of slip-up that he can use to his benefit.

I'd like to think you see the problem with this, but from the tone and timbre of your previous posts on this thread, I can see you're just as lost as Warren.

It makes sense to me now that you'd vilify us for being uneducated while at the same time lionizing Warren who's the ACTUAL 18ish illiterate fool.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Dear FireFighterChen,

With all due respect. (and so far it's very little), Warren Drouin is an idiot, not a crusader. If all he was doing was exercising his right to open carry, then I nor anyone else would have a problem with him. The problem is, Warren isn't satisfied with that. Warren actively TRIES to antagonize the Medford, OR police into making some sort of violation of his rights so he can then cry "FOUL!." He actively tries to antagonize them into a confrontation while all the time having his trusty camera phone rolling to hopefully catch the cops making some sort of slip-up that he can use to his benefit.

I'd like to think you see the problem with this, but from the tone and timbre of your previous posts on this thread, I can see you're just as lost as Warren.

It makes sense to me now that you'd vilify us for being uneducated while at the same time lionizing Warren who's the ACTUAL 18ish illiterate fool.

Dear Ironbar,

Thank you for the little respect you could muster..but I don't really wish to have respect from someone who's first and only argument is name calling. I do find it interesting, as I stated in another forum that I see you attend, that you don't go name bashing when the majority feel Warren was correct, but you go right along with the gang mentality here. As I see it, you are only interested in the 2nd amendment, when his videos have more to do with the 1st and 4th amendments.

I also find it interesting you completely overlook that besides Medford and Eugene, the towns he visits all over the state of Oregon have not been antagonized or are antagonizing Warren in return. Maybe, if you can put the big picture together, Medford and Eugene police need to re-educate their officers on the United States Constitution, Oregon Revised Statues, and the Oregon Constitution. While they are at it, you should also take a look at them as well. You should also look up the reason behind his videos, as he has never used them to sue or use them for personal gain, not once. He uses them to spread the word on what our Rights are.

As I said in the other thread, what Warren has set up is a speed/dui/license check that police do all the time. Just like those checks, they are antagonizing drivers to get them to slip up so they can write a ticket. You would think the Medford police would learn that we have the RTKBA, the Right to freedom of speech, and the Right to be protected from unnecessary search and seizures.

It's ironic you see Warren as the problem when he doesn't have a problem in all but two cities. I also find in issue with calling Warren, the victim who had his property seized based on officer opinion and not law, the problem. Would you also call a rape victim the problem because she was wearing a 2 piece bikini? Can't blame the criminal, he couldn't help himself right? You think I'm lost, why don't you pull your head out of the ground before you tell others where they are.

I have not and do not need to vilify you for being uneducated, you have done a great job at that yourself. I have posted what our Laws and Constitution state, what have you posted? Your opinion and name calling. Warren may have a speech impediment, which you would know if you watched any of his other videos where he talks about it, but the only 18ish fools are those that have no argument except name calling.

Again, I'd just like the point out, the attitude you have here is much different than at OCDO...where the majority of them over there feel the same way I do...think about it.

 

[AlphaCoyote]

Rogue River Oregon, Police Department. Open Carry AR-15 - YouTube

In case any one was too lazy to find a video. Here he is. Doesn't look like a thug to me.

Great video of someone pointing out that there is no issue, no problem, and nothing to talk about.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Great video of someone pointing out that there is no issue, no problem, and nothing to talk about.

That "someone" is the same guy, Warren, that everyone in the beginning of this thread was calling a douche/idiot/moron.

 

[Ironbar]

Dear Chen,

LOL! The reason that so many support Warren at Opencarry.org is that they are of a like-minded ilk- ie: The ends DOES justify the means. I don't bust his balls there because they're very touchy about that sort of thing on that site. Those of us in the know, know who Warren is, and what his game is, and we're a little more free to express our opinions here than there. In fact, every forum I've been on where the video(s) have been posted, the overwhelming majority of people who chimed in agree that Warren is pretty much a tool.

At any rate, as I stated before, if Mr. Drouin wasn't on a mission to actively incite confrontations with the police, I really wouldn't have a problem with him. I'd personally rather get the police on our side by making them our friends rather than treating them as the enemy. It's way easier to have a dialog with a friend than an enemy.

And lastly, Mr. Drouin doesn't have a speech impediment, he's just stupid.

 

[iusmc2002]

Dear Chen,

LOL! The reason that so many support Warren at Opencarry.org is that they are of a like-minded ilk- ie: The ends DOES justify the means. I don't bust his balls there because they're very touchy about that sort of thing on that site. Those of us in the know, know who Warren is, and what his game is, and we're a little more free to express our opinions here than there. In fact, every forum I've been on where the video(s) have been posted, the overwhelming majority of people who chimed in agree that Warren is pretty much a tool.

At any rate, as I stated before, if Mr. Drouin wasn't on a mission to actively incite confrontations with the police, I really wouldn't have a problem with him. I'd personally rather get the police on our side by making them our friends rather than treating them as the enemy. It's way easier to have a dialog with a friend than an enemy.

And lastly, Mr. Drouin doesn't have a speech impediment, he's just stupid.

That's awesome. You flip-flop from site to site so you can stay in the "in crowd". Don't stick to your guns (pun intended), just stay with whatever is the "right" way, per the website. Way to go Mitt, I mean, Ironbar.